While it is hard to fathom the depths to which the Los Angeles Lakers have fallen, and while there is seemingly no end to the entertainment value they provide, there are some other topics worth discussion in the NBA. And we’ll hit on those as we throw some elbows:

Movie time on Fifth Avenue

Watch just about any NBA game, and you’re bound to see it—a questionable call comes up and a veteran player, hoping for an audience with the whistle-happy referee, puts a hand on the shoulder of said ref, pleading his case. Generally, the official gives the vet the courtesy of his ear, nods, blows the player off, and the game continues.

But what happened over the weekend in Atlanta has to make you wonder whether any player should be allowed to make any form of contact with a referee.

During the Boston Celtics’ come-from-behind win over the Atlanta Hawks, Celtics point guard Rajon Rondo was whistled for an offensive foul, when a drive to the basket resulted in Hawks forward Josh Smith hitting the deck. Rondo thought Smith flopped and approached referee Rodney Mott about it. In doing so, Rondo’s shoulder made contact with Mott’s back. Mott wasn’t offended—he didn’t whistle a technical foul on Rondo. He listened, then blew Rondo off, as so often happens.

So Rondo was surprised when he found out the league was looking into the situation, having been tipped off when Hawks general manager Danny Ferry sent a protest DVD of Rondo’s Mott-bump to the NBA office.

Rondo probably could have assuaged the whole thing by explaining to discipline honcho Stu Jackson that the bump was incidental and he was merely explaining his side of the offensive foul to Mott. Instead, Rondo—as it too often his wont, admittedly—was defiant. He didn’t kowtow to the investigation process, using silence to essentially tell the NBA what it could do with Ferry’s DVD.

On Monday, Rondo explained to reporters. “I don’t feel like there was need to have an investigation,” he said. “I know Rodney, and at that particular time on that play, I actually went up to him and I made a joke, he laughed. In the midst of it I guess I touched him. I did touch him, and the league, I guess, reviewed it. … I thought Josh had flopped. You know, I told Rodney, ‘His body size and what he weighs, and look at me. There’s no way I could have made him go into the stands off of contact.’ Like I said, he laughed and threw the ball in. We got back on defense.”

Again, this sort of thing happens all the time. It is not difficult to figure out why Rondo was hit with a suspension—he is, as he says, a “repeat offender.”

Rondo has had numerous run-ins with the league, the most recent of which came in November when Rondo was ejected from a game against the Nets for starting a scuffle with forward Kris Humphries. He was suspended for two games for that. That rap sheet, combined with Rondo’s refusal to beg forgiveness from the league, led to his suspension.

But that’s ridiculous. No matter what Rondo has done in the past, no matter how little credence given to a league investigation, suspensions should be doled out on the merit of the actual incident.

What is to stop every general manager in the league from sending in DVDs of Rondo after every game, forcing him to defend himself for minor transgressions, and getting him slapped with a suspension every time he refuses to explain?

Here’s hoping there is plenty of popcorn at the NBA office. They’ve created an opening through which they could be receiving a lot of movies.

No Jackson, no tears

It was a brief sentiment, and one that should give NBA general managers cause to heave a sigh of relief. In a statement given to SheridanHoops.com, coaching legend Phil Jackson said, simply, “I have no intention of ever coaching again.”

Whew.

When the Lakers abruptly fired Mike Brown five games into the season, Jackson was poised to return to the bench in L.A., the position with which he was so familiar. The Lakers reached out to Jackson, and he thought his return was nigh. In a sudden and shocking shift, though, the Lakers chose Mike D’Antoni. We have seen how that has turned out to date.

One of the big problems for the Lakers and D’Antoni has been the mere presence of Jackson, and the obvious reality that D’Antoni is not Jackson in any way, shape or form.

Jackson’s presence haunts D’Antoni—the players wanted Jackson, the fans wanted Jackson, and even if Jackson might have struggled as badly with this team as D’Antoni has, the biggest beef with Mike is that he is not Phil.

The Brooklyn Nets , by pursuing Jackson, set themselves up for a similar situation. Jackson was rumored to have some interest in taking over for interim P.J. Carlesimo, and if he ultimately hadn’t taken the job, that interest would have lingered the way it has lingered in L.A.

Suppose the Nets hire Kelvin Sampson, or suppose they let Carlesimo keep the job—just as with the Lakers, fans and players will have the Phil question in the backs of their minds. Could we have done more to get Phil Jackson? Would we have won 72 games if we had him?

Washington came into the year hopeful that, with the addition of veterans Trevor Ariza, Emeka Okafor and Nene, plus rookie Bradley Beal, Wall would lead them to the postseason. Instead, they’re 5-28, and would need to go 36-13 the rest of the way to get back to .500 and have a chance at the East playoffs. We can cross that off the list of hoped-for scenarios.

But even without the playoffs, even with another season in the cellar, the next few months will be big for Washington.

The team has a crucial decision coming up this offseason on whether to grant Wall an extension—and Wall, similarly, needs to decide whether he wants to stay put with this moribund franchise.

Wall can prove he was worth the No. 1 pick in 2010 by at least orchestrating a strong finish. That would go a long way, too, toward helping besieged general manager Ernie Grunfeld and coach Randy Wittman keep their jobs.

It’s a lot to put on Wall. He has shown flashes of being a top-shelf point guard in the NBA, but his development has been held back by having to play with knuckleheaded young guys who lacked professionalism.